Application of PFC

[2016] NSWCA 102

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Application of PFC [2016] NSWCA 102
Hearing dates:	On the papers
Decision date:	11 May 2016
Before:	Beazley P; Sackville AJA
Decision:	Summons seeking leave to appeal dismissed
Catchwords:	PROCEDURE – Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981 – leave to appeal – no prima facie grounds for proceedings – not in the interests of justice to grant leave to appear
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981 (NSW) Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Carolan v AMF Bowling Pty Ltd t/as Bennetts Green Bowl [1995] NSWCA 69 Clark v R (No 2) [2015] NSWCCA 271 Clark v R [2015] NSWCCA 265 Lee v New South Wales Crime Commission [2012] NSWCA 262 PFC v R (No 2) [2014] NSWCCA 241 PFC v R [2011] NSWCCA 275 PFC v State of New South Wales & Anor [2015] NSWSC 1507 Rogers v The Queen [1994] HCA 42; 181 CLR 251
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	PFC (Applicant)
Representation:	Applicant in person
File Number(s):	2015/345318
Decision under appeal	Court or tribunal: Supreme Court Citation: [2015] NSWSC 1507 Date of Decision: 15 October 2015 Before: Fagan J File Number(s): 2015/219322

Headnote

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

The applicant is in custody, having been convicted of a number of serious indictable offences. He sought leave, pursuant to the Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981 (NSW) (the Act), s 4 to commence proceedings seeking damages for false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, deceit, abuse of process and negligence against the State of New South Wales and the Director of Public Prosecutions. The primary judge, Fagan J, was not satisfied that the proceedings were not an abuse of process or that they had prima facie grounds: the Act, s 5. His Honour thus refused to grant leave.

The applicant sought leave to appeal against the decision of Fagan J pursuant to s 6 of the Act. By the proposed appeal, the applicant contended that Fagan J erred in not conducting an inquiry into the applicant’s convictions under the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW), Pt 7; by “conducting his own private inquiry ex parte after the hearing had concluded”; and in dismissing the applicant’s application.

Pursuant to s 7 of the Act, leave was required for the applicant or the proposed defendants to appeal on the appeal.

The Court held:

(1)   It was not in the interests of justice to grant leave to the applicant or the proposed defendants to appear on the appeal, there being no utility in doing so. [16]

(2)   An inquiry into the applicant’s convictions under the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 was not a matter before his Honour and there was no error in his failure to conduct it. [22]

(3)   Contrary to the applicant’s submission, his Honour was not restricted solely to the material relied upon by the applicant. Rather, he correctly and…